February 17, 2006

Battling The Cult

Glenn Greenwald attracted a fair bit of attention with his post explaining that some Bush followers are "authoritarian cultists". Let's squeeze some juice on Saturday morning:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or
someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on
the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the
death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism,"
hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These
days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now,
in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a
failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one
criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless
of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one
criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one
is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no
longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function
purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

...And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah
Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian
cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but
to strong authority through a single leader.

Whatever. Look, the point of these Bush-bashing diatribes is not to make sense - there is a virtually insatiable internet market for anyone interested in trying to stretch "Bush Sucks" into five thousand or more words. I imagine that, as podcasting develops, we will see this genre set to a danceable beat so that the target market can tap their toes and sway to the cadence.

And as with other pop songs, a memorable tagline is important; "authoritarian cultist" provides a wonderful mix of menace and intellectual heft.

Beyond the tagline, Greenwald was also shrewd enough to position this post in a way that appealed to Andrew Sullivan's sense of victimhood - Andrew, the Solitary Soldier of Truth, Bravely Battling the Bushies... this tirade had to go to Number One, with a bullet!

But fun's fun. James Taranto took the trouble to follow the links and see just what evidence Mr. Greenwald offered in suppport of his thesis. What he found was not enough to get a passing grade on a seventh-grade paper, but was evidently more than enough for the Self-Invented Reality Based Community. What's next for the "Best Of" team - in the weekend edition, will Mr. Taranto fisk "Stairway to Heaven"? (How could all that glitters be gold, anyway - what about diamonds and rubies?)

The Bull Moose offered a few sagacious paragraphs, but we will steal only this:

Yes, there is an element of conservatism that
attempts to apply a Lenninist discipline on ideological heterodoxy. In
fact, the Moose was the target of their efforts. The Moose has enjoyed
the distinct pleasure of being labeled both a Republican squish and a
Rovian plant. But, based upon personal exposure to both sides of the
political spectrum, this mammal can confidently observe that there is
more tolerance for differences on the right side of the spectrum than
on the left.

While Greenwald suggests that "loyalty" to Bush is
the requirement for the right, the standard to to be a member in good
standing of the liberal/left community is hatred of Bush.

Emphasis added. The always dry and sly Peter Daou is kind enough to illustrate this very point as he praises the Greenwald gurgitation:

Lately, there's been a burst of energy in the progressive blog world,
with dozens of great posts from high profile - and high traffic -
bloggers on Daily Kos, Eschaton, HuffPo, C&L, FDL, MyDD, TPM, and several others. Among those blog entries are two seminal posts, one by Digby, the other by Glenn Greenwald.

Mr. Daou goes on to link to "a definitive piece on the "Cult of Bush". But eventually, way down in a note at the bottom, he lets his readers in on the joke - Daou is making the same sort of assumption about Greenwald's politics (Greenwald is bashing Bush, he must be a progressive) that Greenwald is decrying in the post Mr. Daou praises.

[Oh, do you not trust my characterization of Mr. Daou's end note? See for yourself:

NOTE: Although this piece is about the trajectory of progressive
blogging, I should note that Greenwald's post is not written from a
specific ideological perspective.

Why Mr. Daou chose a "seminal" but non-ideological blog post to celebrate the week in progressive blogs remains a bit of a mystery. Another mystery - is that a "NOTE", or, more precisely, an "UPDATE"? Put another way, did Mr. Daou seriously not realize that his "NOTE" and his opening paragraph contradict each other, or did he add the "NOTE" later, perhaps after outside intervention? Answer: these are activists blogs, so say it with me - facts don't matter!]

Messrs. Greenwald and Sullivan chortle over that very "mistake" when made by Bush supporters, so I have no doubt they enjoyed the Daou drollery.

Meanwhile Bush supporters have been beside themselves all week, and are no doubt trembling in fear of the next lash from Greenwald's cat o' nine tails. Or maybe they are watching the Olympics. No worries. A few weeks ago, we were "frightened bedwetters"; now we are "authoritarian cultists"; in a few weeks, we will surely be "authoritarian bedwetters", or something else entirely. The well of juvenile insults is bottomless.

Meanwhile, my one secret hope - that a notable Dem would actually pick up on one of these silly, self-defeating themes - remains unanswered. Too bad. Don't we all agree that if Howard Dean had any stones, he would say "authoritarian cultists" right there on national television? Howard, you hold the fate of a nation right there in your hand, or mouth anyway. Go!

BONUS: Let me offer supporters of the "authoritarion cultist" theory an easy shot at the hoop - George Will whacked Bush for the NSA program on Wednesday; Heather Wilson, the Congressfolk from New Mexico whose national reputation does not precede her, broke with Bush on the NSA program a bit more than a week ago.

So it should be easy to document attempts by the Cult to re-label Will and Wilson, yes?

If you need to keep it simple - Greenwald cited "Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah
Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt". Jeff Goldstein also earned a mention somewhere. That is not a lot of looking to do, and evidence of the Cult should abound, yes?

I have no doubt that the many hard-headed, truthseeking members of the Self-Invented Reality Based Community will rise to this modest challenge. Just as I have no doubt they carefully evaluated the "evidence" offered by Glenn Greenwald last week before shouting "Huzzah!".

LAST THOUGHT 'TIL THE NEXT ONE: A careful re-reading of the Andrew Sullivan post that started it all shows Andrew using the word "liberal" in quotes, as in:

I'm a little stunned that this is now something that now requires one to be seen as a "liberal."

However, following the links, Bozell never called Sullivan a liberal - that word was applied to The New Republic magazine (and is truth a defense here?). Bozell (or whoever wrote the piece) says that "Andrew Sullivan has been off the conservative reservation for at least a couple of years", but surely there are other reservations than Camp Left on Dean Island that might hold Andrew. Militant libertarians?

Sullivan and Greenwald - could be a great name of a law firm. But don't count on them to actually read the evidence.

AND ONE MORE THING: James Taranto links to the wrong Greenwald diatribe (Jan 16, 2006), or at least, his excerpt does not match the diatribe to which he linked. The Feb 12 tirade is correct. We will accept the "They all read the same" defense, this time.

Comments

It must suck to realize that SS is going bankrupt, that Iraq is better off without Saddam, and that Bush might have a brain of his own; worse, that his supporters might.
==================================

"Authoritarian Cultists" has a nice ring to it. Much better than bedwetters, anyway. If only we AC's weren't battling the constant stream of the dreaded "Next Scandal" (the one that will take the Bush administration down, the only way a democrat feels they can win the elections)we might have a minute or two to chime in on some of the issues we have with the Bush administration. Alas, our criticisms will have to wait until the democratic party decides to grow up and tackle the issues...

Alas, our criticisms will have to wait until the democratic party decides to grow up and tackle the issues...

Well, time and tide waited for no man when Harriet Miers was put on offer - the Cultists ran wild.

But Jonah Goldberg made that point in a recent column - its tough to launch a cogent criticism of some policy point in the White House when the other side is screaming for impeachment. Timing is everything.

I have a bone to pick with the shell of the 'democratic(people authority)' party who believes those silver spoons in their mouths developed in utero. The PC liberal elite is no longer sucking sustenance from teat populus, and the pap from the papers yields dyspepsia. There's something rotten in that crew, and you can smell it all the way over here.
=========================================

Whatever. Look, the point of these Bush-bashing diatribes is not to make sense - there is a virtually insatiable internet market for anyone interested in trying to stretch "Bush Sucks" into five thousand or more words.

Tom could have stopped at this Mr. Daou. The rest was filler, leading us back to this.

In case you didn't get it, I meant moral authority. A recent historical figure tosssed his away, left it hanging out to dry on a blue muslin rack, and displaying it only accentuated its flimsiness in the first place. Moral authority fit him like a g-string. What was flimsiest, and shabbiest was his betrayal of feminism. Schmatta. The putz. The schlemiel. The schmuck. God, would someone please teach me yiddish so I can express my feelings about THAT authority. Maybe Hindi would be better.
======================================
===========================================

Kim — Sorry, but feminism betrayed itself with Bubba. Both NOW and the late Hollywood Women's Political Caucus (and, I suspect, NARAL) had prior knowledge of the peckerdillos of the likes Clinton and the Peppermint RINO Packwood. They did NOTHING because the preds were saying the right things. Any movement that will place its members in physical jeopardy for a short term political advantage is a dead cause.

Hey I've been trying to standardize terminology about the leftist demoncrat elite. I really think the attacks on Bush need to be labeled "Scandal du Jour" and that those leading the attacks should be referred to as the "Society of Subversion" (in counterpoint to the "culture of corruption"). Just getting the brain warmed up though....I need more of my favorite drug - caffeine......mmmmmm (in my best Home Simpson drool...)

Just to post another notice on the wall of the anti-terrorist shelter where the local den of the authoritarian cult meets:

Ecumenical Ethics.

1. Do not lie.

2. Do not steal.

3. Do not kill.

4. Do not commit sexual folly.
***********************************

You may expand it to the Ten Commandments, or contract it to the Golden Rule, but it says to not yield to the blandishments of fame, money, power, or sex. Standing firm, in the face of massive temptation, is the measure of moral authority.

Homer has it. So should we.
============================================

Now, wait. TM's mighty fine point is that the proof is in the support.

If you want to stand on the barn roof, swing your underwear around over your head, and scream at the world like a banshee, then you'd better have a good reason for doing so or everyone will assume that you're just a nut.

However, maybe that could be the tactic now anyway, come to think of it... Get enough people screaming like Howard at the rally and maybe you can alter the current of American politics.

Naw. Can't be true. Talk about *time and tide* sweeping things out to sea.

Anyway, let's not sling insults back (uh huh), but sharpen the blades of wit and perspective, spur the horses of the virtual conservative mongol horde, and ride into a clearer, prouder day in America!

(Gee, don't write comments while Saturday cartoons are on! Sheesh.)

At any rate: "I should note that Greenwald's post is not written from a specific ideological perspective."

Kim, you are in fine form today, cutting through all the white noise and getting right to the facts and the realities of our world. Thank you for your clarity.
Specter: thank you for your humor and caffeine is also my wake-up call.

You would have better off not pointing out that little bit of obtuseness on your part. You actually looked well informed after Tom got thru with you, at least in contrast to the KOS culties. But you could not bear agreeing with a Bush backer could you. The march will continue until moral improves.

The cultist bit is projection, but while I regale the lefts wild use of energies (talk about bad time management issues, (hello!November is creeping up here) it never ceases to amaze me smart people do it.

I just have a hard time believing a big chunk of the dem party was absent on the day the kindergarten teacher told Suzy to quite obsessing on what Tommy, Michael and Millie should be doing and start worrying about her own work.

Hmmmm. An admittedly oversimplified and hyped discription of Bush supporters using a label is out of bounds. Tom's post point this out with an oversimplified and hyped discription of Bush opponents. The commenters pile on.

I gather you don't like being described as extreamists by extreamists? Using the extreamists to paint and define the "enemy" is one of the oldest propoganda trick in the book.

A few extream muslim clerics used the same techniques with a few cartoons drawn by some recactionary Danes to start a riots that still continue. took them several weeks to do it, but the fire is sure blazing now.

NOTE: Although this piece is about the trajectory of progressive blogging, I should note that Greenwald's post is not written from a specific ideological perspective.

Really? Well, let's just examine that suggestion a bit, shall we?

Greenwald wrote:

And what I hear, first and foremost, from these Bush following corners is this, in quite a shrieking tone: "Oh, my God - there are all of these evil people trying to kill us, George Bush is doing what he can to save us, and these liberals don’t even care!!! They’re on their side and they deserve the same fate!!!" It doesn’t even sound like political argument; it sounds like a form of highly emotional mass theater masquerading as political debate. It really sounds like a personality cult. It is impervious to reasoned argument and the only attribute is loyalty to the leader. Whatever it is, it isn’t conservative.

Well, I have to give Greenwald credit for being right about one thing - what he describes above isn't a conservative argument. In fact, he persuasively destroys those who espouse this argument here and elsewhere in his piece. The fact that almost no serious conservative, either in the blogosphere or body politic in general takes this position seems not to matter to him at all. But then it wouldn't, would it? After all, contra your assertion, he is actually making an ideological argument.

Greenwald goes on to note a popular (but unverified) email purportedly by John Hinderaker of Powerline as illustrative of the madness of the alleged purveyors of his strawman on the right. But Greenwald also names other names:

And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.

Without any effort at all, one can find posts from Malkin, and Goldberg. Hinderaker opposed Meir's nomination and . It's pretty hard to defend Hugh Hewitt - he is the consumate administration apologist, and I don't think he has ever really disagreed with anything Bush does.

But the pièce de résistance of Greenwald's argument seems to be the NSA "spying" issue:

If it now places one "on the Left" to oppose unrestrained power and invasiveness asserted by the Federal Government along with lawlessness on the part of our highest government officials, so be it. The rage-based reverence for The President as Commander-in-Chief -- and the creepy, blind faith vested in his goodness -- is not a movement I recognize as being political, conservative or even American.

Because virtually all of the people he has cited have defended the administration's NSA wiretapping program (most with sound, fact-based argumentation), Greenwald finds them supporters of lawlessness and unrestrained power. Never mind that he fails to support his allegations with sound sound analysis of his own - he apparently wants us to believe that actual argumentative refutation is unnecessary for something so intuitively obvious.

But what really exposes Greenwald's overt ideoligical position is not so much his point - he would be right in spades if his premise weren't indefensibly false on its face - but the fact that he paints left-wing "progressive" blogs as repositories of truth, a conclusion which you highlight:

The attempt to marginalize progressive bloggers as part of an angry, unwashed, irrational mob is in full swing, but truth-telling has a self-sustaining power.

Greenwald's ideology is exposed not in this argument itself, but in its one-sidedness, as is often the case in the media - a point which both sides often make persuasively. Your footnoted attempt to paint Greenwald's post as objectively neutral is as insincere as it is ridiculous. You would have been more credible had you omitted it altogether.

If you believe "that Greenwald's post is not written from a specific ideological perspective" perhaps you're the one who should be reading more carefully.

I note that in an earlier piece you ascribe Dem failures at the polls to lack of coordination between progressive netroots, the Democratic party and the MSM. I'd be curious to know how you contend that actually works on this side of the blogosphere here at JustOneMinute.

I'm not describing you as anything - I don't know you. I don't "hate" you - or Bush for that matter. i think he is wrong on more issues that I can count - but that doesn't mean he is in any danger of a fatwa from the likes of me. Nor, I suspect, is he in any such danger from the folks Tom is addressing in this post.

I think the label "Bush Cultist" is an attempt to describe/explain the unwavering support for the President by a certain group of people when he takes positions and makes policy that are far from traditional Republican positions (e.g., prescription drugs, Wilsonian internationalism, deficit spending). Tom attacks the labeling as sensationalist and attempts to marginalize the netroots by ridicule.

I would say that " "Bush Cultist" and "Bushhater" (or as Clarice says, "part of an angry, unwashed, irrational mob ") are roughly equivalent. They exist on both sides of the divide.

I don't consider myself angry, unwashed,or irrational. I'm just a married middle-class mother of two who works in education and attempts in my own small way to make the world a better place. Everyone has their own story to tell and their own life experience that brought them to where they are today. If we can't dialogue and try to at least listen to one another than we have missed an opportunity to see each other's viewpoints and to develop as evolved human beings.

I take full credit or blame for labelling Clarice a "malicious speculator" after some creepy criticism labelled her article "malicious speculation". In a maybe feeble effort at jest, I asked her if she was now or had ever been a malicious speculator. Just call me "Tailgunner Larry".

Kim: Although many of your excursions into poesy leave me feeling dumb, scratching my head, wondering why I can't connect your dots, "The PC liberal elite is no longer sucking sustenance from teat populus, and the pap from the papers yields dyspepsia." feeds one of my passions, loving a little alliteration along with a late, lazy lagniappe of latte.

President by a certain group of people when he takes positions and makes policy that are far from traditional Republican positions (e.g., prescription drugs, Wilsonian internationalism, deficit spending).

But see Tex, Clinton did the very same thing, for example welfare reform and Dems who still find that abhorrent look the other way with unwavering devotion. Heck, the so-called feminist movement took a friggin bullet for the cause defending Clinton.

I think the label "Bush Cultist" is an attempt to describe/explain the unwavering support for the President by a certain group of people when he takes positions and makes policy that are far from traditional Republican positions

I think it's an attempt to scapegoat or project inner party problems. Someone is to blame, but it's NOT the democrat party damn-it!

Daou and Greenwald don't scare me and while Modo coins "Scooty and the Shooter" - it she knitting this into a banner al la deFarge?
I have one of my own - "that one
daughter" hence to be refered to as TOD. They annoy me - they don't
scare me......

** Former US President Bill Clinton becomes the first Western leader to urge nations to convict those who published the Muhammad cartoons!! **

This was not the first time that Bill Clinton spoke out against the Muhammad cartoons but it was the first time he spoke publicly about prosecuting Westerners for their freedom of speech choices in regards to the cartoon controversy.

PLEASE READ IT ALL - WE SHOULD GET ON THIS.

IMHO Bill is triangulating Hill as Senator of New York and himself as
King of World at Turtle Bay.

Now we know why the LSM did not publish the cartoons - DIRECT ORDERS
FROM THE DEMS

Daniel Henninger of the WSJ made a great point on Friday in an article entitled "Cheney as Toast: Democrats Burning Down the House."

"The press's supersizing of the Cheney shooting may look like excess. So what? No matter how voters feel on any one issue - terror, the courts, values - the Democrats, event after event, are building the feeling that the Bush-Cheney presidency and the GOP Congress have somehow been 40 miles of bad road."

"But collaborating with a willing media to market the opposition party as a haunted house is a cynical, wholly reductionist strategy, with nothing in it for the public good. It dumbs down our politics. As shown with Social Security reform, the system ceases to function. A major US foreign-policy initiative like the Bush Doctrine has to be delegitimized with no serious opposition support at any level. This is the strategy of the phalanx, not politics. If it works, the other side will surely run the same tar-and-pitch strategy against a new Clinton presidency. It deserves to fail."

Tex
I didn't make my point all that well above. What I mean is supporting the President over so-called party principle is not new and the use is not relegated solely by conservatives...and to pretend it is and act vexed by it, is really just a sly deflection and frankly a poor use of energy.

Calling conservatives cultist may make GG feel good in the interim but um what does it do for democrats?

Am I the only who doesn't give a flying fig what any of these former presidents or vice-presidents think or say.? My advice to them GET OFF THE STAGE! You had your turn and your chance- now leave us alone.! I don't care what you think, feel or do at this point. YOU ARE NO LONGER A PLAYER! Get over yourself. This includes Joe and Val also.
!
?

I don't have an excuse other than the use of spell check for the past 10 years - but I try not to make excuses - I never could spell. FWIW, I don't consider most of the netroots folks extremist- just highly partisan. Their approach (combining condescension, ridicule, no trace of doubt, and zero sum resolution) is not exactly an effective evangelistic technique here in Texas. Moreover, its exactly Rove's technique - rule with 50.00001% and the heck with everyone else. Compromise is not a dirty word.

Maryrose, I give a flying fig because these asshats, Carter, Gore and Clinton in particular, are encouraging enemies of the USA. I do have mixed emotions about them, though. The more they bleat, blather and bloviate (See what you started, Kim?), the more they expose themselves and the illiberal left.

For the record, I strongly oppose Bush on: Spending, immigration, Miers and a few other things I won't take time to try to remember. However, on the question of utmost importance, national defense, the alternatives to Bush give me nightmares.

The reason for calling conservatives cultists is quite simple. The Demos have big time congnitive dissonance. They see themselves as smarter and on the right side of every issue. Now several electoral drubbing in a row have shown them that they are a minority in what they think and believe. This can be explained by a certain little reconciling in their mind. You know as they condenscendingly think that the fools are all just brainwashed and not really rejecting liberal principles. This way they can continue to feel superior, it works for them in their own psyches.

I always loved it when the MSM breathlessly told us how conservatives were critical of W over the conduct of the war - without the details. Nasty thing, those details. They always seemed to show that what WE (I have always prided myself on being a conservative - AuH2O'64) were being negative about was that the administration was being too timid in its conduct. Much of this same name-calling is of this character. When Liberals learn to discuss issues and not personalities, they might have a chance at regaining political power.

"NOTE: Although this piece is about the trajectory of progressive blogging, I should note that Greenwald's post is not written from a specific ideological perspective."

Perhaps this is from a spoof commenter? I reply, nonetheless:

Peter;

When you criticize my work, please read it more carefully (if at all).

Folks who did read it probably noticed this:

But eventually, way down in a note at the bottom, he [Daou] lets his readers in on the joke - Daou is making the same sort of assumption about Greenwald's politics (Greenwald is bashing Bush, he must be a progressive) that Greenwald is decrying in the post Mr. Daou praises.

Seeing as how I mention a note at the bottom, and seeing as how the bottom of the Daou post does say "Note", a casual reader might infer that I have read the note and am mocking it.

You and I did make different choices about how to characterize it, however - your phrasing understandably chose to under-emphasize the absurdity of your entire Greenwald section, and played down the fact that you had more or less utterly failed to grasp Greenwald's point the first time through.

If you prefer, check your own comments section - I warmed up these arguments there last night, to the horror of those in attendance.

Believe me, I read that note - I only wonder if any one else realized how amusing it was. Maybe they do now.

Rather than criticize me for a failure to read carefuly, you might want to take that advice yourself.

Hmmmm. An admittedly oversimplified and hyped discription of Bush supporters using a label is out of bounds...

"Admittedly"? Admitted by whom?

Anyway, I diligently ignored that rant for almost a week, but three stars aligned:

(1) Glenn Reynolds linked to the Taranto column for the Al Gore bit, and I noticed the Greenwald thing (for what seemed like the hundredth time, and I have *never* gotten a "Best Of" link. Beware the green-eyed monster).

(2) Some commenters started offering it as irrefutable proof of my eternal damnation, or something.

(3) The Anon Lib, who is normally quite good, cited it in his post about George Will.

Sometimes, when no one is looking, I allow my Bush and Coulter collectible action figures to couple in a wild, Illuminati-inspired ritual, in the hopes that they will produce a magical uber-authoritarian offspring -- and that I will be that offspring's Gepetto.

King of neocons! I SHALL NOT REST!

Of course, when I was blasting the Miers nomination, I was evil for demanding -- against the President's wishes (Lo! How bald my perfidy! How blatant my apostasy! Or was it all a ruse...?) -- that Ms Miers not be given a hearing by the Senate judiciary committee.

Which just goes to show that there are many avenues to becoming an "authoritarian cultist."

I debated Greenwald -- on "patriotism" and, more often, on the NSA program -- in good faith, and using as much evidence as I could muster. For my efforts, Greenwald turned more and more to name calling and suggestions that I was simply dissembling to protect my liege, the Honorable King George.

Finall, I gave up on the guy. Alas, I did so just before he became the new king of the lefty blogosphere, primarily for being able to (as Tom puts notes), spread a shallow and trite message of Bush hatred (disguised as a self-congratulatory civil liberties absolutism) over a substantial enough smear of words that it mimics a lengthy coherent thought.

Plus, he has the credentials to pontificate, his being a civil rights attorney and all. Which, ironically, seems quite important to the defenders of the everyman who populate the progressive movement.

Tom, I'm posting the email I just sent you, and if you're suggesting that I added the "note" after I read your post, I already had this same exchange with another blogger almost a week ago, so the caveat was sitting there for you to read:

"Glenn and I are friends. He doesn't consider himself a progressive or a liberal. The piece he wrote was something that I think needed to be said. It was one of the best expositions of the faux-conservatism on rightwing blogs that I've ever read. Perhaps it's because he doesn't come from a strict ideological perspective that the post is so effective.

His recent blogging, fierce as it is in defense of the Constitution, has become essential reading for progressive bloggers, which is why I included it in my piece.

The reason I wrote to you and posted in your comments section is because you're the second blogger who accused me of undermining my argument by assuming Glenn's a progressive.

I welcome criticism, but all I ask is that the criticism accurately reflect my position."

The piece he wrote was something that I think needed to be said. It was one of the best expositions of the faux-conservatism on rightwing blogs that I've ever read. Perhaps it's because he doesn't come from a strict ideological perspective that the post is so effective.

As a classical liberal with a strong affinity for sovereignty and a strong conservative sense that the power of government should be used primarily to protect its citizens, I find it odd to hear how powerfully my faux-conservatism has been exposed.

I've written on this before, but in a sense, it seems to my that my alignment with certain "conservative" principles is the result of what was formally considered liberalism being replaced by the collectivism of identity politics, which by its very nature is anti-individual (and so at odds with our liberal principles). Or, to put it another way, I haven't changed so much as the various definitions of political positions have taken a few giant slide steps to the left.

When gross-generalizations based upon the cheap grace of declaring oneself an independent thinker (and so free to see the political universe from the metaphysical heights of a non-ideologue) serve no other point than to reinforce gross generalizations based on no evidence, that strikes me as sloppy, opportunistic "thinking" -- not, as you would have it, Mr Daou, "one of the best expositions of the faux-conservatism on rightwing blogs" that has ever been penned.

JimE:
I'm open for dialogue with regular folks. The reason I feel as I do about previously famous people is they use their past position as ballast to say whatever they want. They don't always speak responsibly and suffer no consequences for this. As former leaders they owe us better than that. Though I did not vote for any of these people, I feel sorry for those who did because I feel they are betraying their trust. Like people who are pro-life originally and then switch positions to get elected. What's up with that?

Peter Daou | February 18, 2006 at 01:46 PM: "... if you're suggesting that I added the "note"
after I read your post,..." Maybe in the reality based universe this drivel passes for intelligent
discourse, Mr. Daou, but here in cultland, I defy you to show how you came to this witless
accusation from anything TM has posted.

It's funny, I have been arguing w/ the other commentors at Glenn Greenwald’s Blog regarding this, but I argue that it really isn’t so much that supporters of Bush are “cultists” as Glenn insists. Glenn is using a litigator’s approach to a jury & the left’s natural tendency to react to Bush emotionally, to garner support & make a more far reaching & political argument by invoking the ghost of Nixon past. I wrote…

” like any good attorney Glenn wants the jury, in this case his readers, to associate Bush & wiretapping w/ Nixon & Nixon’s guilt. Look at how his arguments have been shaped. Start off questioning the legality of the NSA program very objectively, then criticize Bush supporters & call them “cultists” or imply that they are just mindless followers. The real “cultists”, the ones who react emotionally & are anti-Bush no matter what, immediately have their view points reinforced & have been given additional ammunition against that which they hate. Further assert corruption by invoking images of unquestionable guilt – Nixon Administration – while implying similarities & let the jury believe that they have arrived at their own conclusions. They win the jury’s support & they root for his side blindly & trust it completely, because he has fed their vanity & emotions, all the while attacking the other side which they hate. Look at the emotional reactions of some commentors who were thrown off by the SJC dropping the investigation. He just had to add the specter of the Nixon Administration & they suddenly feel better & are ready to rejoin the crusade, until the next setback”

It is under the guise to garner support & the article was only superficially meant as a criticism against the reactionary side of the conservative & Republican portion of the blogsphere. His arguments against NSA are extremely rational, well thought out & legally sound. This attack is geared to lull Bush haters into an emotional frenzy in an effort to either generate more controversy regarding the NSA wiretap scandal or to pump up his web-traffic – possibly both. I have argued this on his blog & further added that who wouldn’t want that intensely heavy & faithful DKOS traffic? Look at the number of comments that keep increasing w/ each posting. Personally, I think that he is brilliant & is definitely someone who deserves the attention he is getting.

There are a lot of us cult members who also consider themselves long term independents who have become repelled by the left's recent rhetoric, which sounds authoritarian, and attracted by the right's recent ideas, which sound classicly liberal, repulsed by Clinton's ethics, and surprised by Bush's.
===========================================

Its interesting that you describe the left as authoritarian when the right controls all the levers of power and the President still feels it is necessary to wiretap American citizens extra-legally and asserts that no other branch of government should have any say-so about it. Lets just forget about separation of powers, shall we?

Sounds suspiciously authoritarian to me.

A friend of mine joked the other day, "Will somebody give Bush a blow job so we can impeach him?"

Texastoast:
Now that is just the kind of statement that separates a moral leader President Bush from a immoral one-Clinton. Even if impeached that doesn;t guarantee the person will leave- you remember Clinton LACKED the character and class to do that. I'm sure Hillary had a lot to do with his decision to stay because she feared it would mess up her future chanes. Right wing-conspiracy my foot-horny husband -yes.

Tom, I'm posting the email I just sent you, and if you're suggesting that I added the "note" after I read your post...

OK, Larry beat me to it, but here is my comment - can anyone even hint to me how that suggests that he added his note *after* he read my post?

For heaven's sake! My point is that I referenced *His* note in *my* post. I am not further suggesting that, after seeing my reference to his note, he ran back and added it (These Rovian mind-rays are good, but they aren't *that* good.)

I am starting to think that a lot of this is attributable to a simple inability to read. That would explain why he thought Greenwald's post represented 'seminal" work.

You're being too tough on Bill. Think of being trapped with Hillary all those years. He may have had some sort of low character to begin with but constant exposure to feckless amorality would abrade the ability of even a man of moderately good character to discern right from wrong. He was far too weak a man to be held totally responsible for anything he did.

Rick;
I will go a step further. I do not believe for one minute that Hillary didn't know about Lewinsky before Clinton finally admitted it in August. I knew he was lying from the get-go. Depends on what the word is"is" Sheesh!

TT:"Compromise is not a dirty word"
Tell that to Joe Liberman. He is being well-rewarded for his attempts to work with the president, is he not?

Larwyn- I saw Bill Clinton on CNN last night,making his remarks in Pakistan. They did not show him saying anything about convicting those that made the cartoons, but instead criticized both sides. He may have said it, but I don't know. I'm not certain the Pakistan Times is the most accurate source for un-propagandized quotes.

TM:I am starting to think that a lot of this is attributable to a simple inability to read. That would explain why he thought Greenwald's post represented 'seminal" work.

But not notable national figures? Seems you have a reverse-elitism thing going on.

maryrose: "The reason I feel as I do about previously famous people is they use their past position as ballast to say whatever they want."

What's this about "previously famous people"? You were specifically referring to all former presidents and vice-presidents, not Steve Guttenberg. That you would consider them no longer significant or famous is quite interesting. And by "interesting," I mean, "crazy."

It's been said before, but if there's any tendency to rally to Bush even for those of us who don't agree with many of his policies, it's in reaction to the slobbering automatons on the left, who for over 5 years now have attempted to undermine him and the competent patriots in his administration at every turn, regardless of the cost to our own security and prosperity. It's not a cult, but a defense.

Could you please refrain from simple nutshells? We're trying to have a long tedious thread here and you kinda cramped the overall style. Yeah, no fat or chase cutting please...okay...yeah...that would be great, thanks.

OK I want somebody to answer this question for me.
Where did the sane, sensible, but usually wrong, Democrats go? I mean to say, one minute I'm watching Sam Nunn, Pat Moynihan, Bob Kerry and the pre lobotomy Algore speaking perfectly sensible, albeit mistaken political jargon in a rational, respectful tone, and the next minute they're replaced by a cross between a Berekely gay pride parade and the Mensheviks.
Did Clinton kill it or the internet or what? I really don't understand how a party can metamorph so quickly. Will the oracles here please explain for this bumpkin.

Actually, just one generation ago (for me anyway) democrats and the word conservative went together. I come from a long line of Texas democrats. I am the first to break that by voting for Reagan. I was what was affectionately known as a Reagan democrat. Somewhere along the way, the party left me, I didn't leave the party.

I date it from the '92 campaign. I don't believe that the "War Room" rhetoric had ever been publicly proclaimed prior to that campaign. Then when Comrade Hillary ripped off the moderate mask and tried to ram through the first Clinton Five Year Plan for the nationalization of health care - and got her butt deservedly kicked - the WH went into every day campaign mode. That was a partial reaction to Gingrich's effective "Contract" rhetoric which followed the health care defeat and partially due to the fact that the Clinton's only knew how to campaign - governance was simply beyond their capability. The '94 defeat was the handwriting on the wall for many Dem moderates. The good Dem pols read the Clinton's like a book and knew that while they were effective personal politicians, they were the death knell for the party overall. In short, the moderate Dems got out while the getting was good and left the Blue Castle Barons to defend their ever diminishing territories.

There is a part of politics that is pure demographics. The older one gets, the more one tends to accumulate and as one accumulates the desire to conserve the accumulation grows. Aging babyboomers aren't quite as liberal as they once were and the home ownership statistics coupled with that aging make it unlikely that the "We will fight to raise taxes (so we can buy a few more votes)" boys are going to get pack in the winner circle any time soon.

The aforementioned "famous" people no longer influence or direct policy and therefore not as significant as they once were. Al Gore's statements could cause irreparable harm to our troops by further ginning up anti-American feelings-the same with Clinton's rremarks.No one cares what I say on this thread but the liberal media-it has been scientifically proven it is liberal- print everything they say and try to bring their with a sense of gravitas . All it is then is partisan blather which doesn't help the debate. Hillary once said in an interview" well I have my partisan hat on now" I thought she was supposed to be working to better our country, Why does she have to wear a partisan hat? Joe Lieberman doesn't seem to play it that way. Also I thought speaking against the USA was kept inside our shores. How come Kerry, Bill Gore and some house dems don't follow that rule/? Are they exempt from it because they used to " be somebody"? Also there was a rule that former presidents don't disparage current ones. So what is Carter's excuse? I have a theory that CLinton Carter and Gore know that history is not going to be kind to them. Taking back a concession and contesting an election for a month after multitudinous recounts is a great legacy. They are now in the process of trying to rewrite history. Well good luck with that.

In 1968 if I was old enough to vote it would have been Humphrey because I was from a Union family. In 1972 because my brother was in Vietnam I believed the republicans message that they would bring him home. He got an early out and I haven't switched since then.

My bad. I promise to try to come up with 5,000 words next time. ::grin::

Well I mean come on Sue, no need to kill a thread prematurely with SENSE!

I knew things went wacko when another girl in the office 2 years older than me put her head in her lap and started crying as we all were watching the Saddam statue being torn down on TV. People were mulling about you know joking about Baghdad Bob 5 minutes before saying US Troops weren't in Baghdad (exaggeration)

"This is so bad, this is so bad" she wept.

Were all sorta standing around, when someone asks "What, what is so bad"

She looked up, tears streaming down her face

"This, Iraqi's tearing this down..."

Bewildered co-worker, "Well I mean Annie, isn't this a good thing, I mean shouldn't they want to do this?"

I'll go to my grave thinking if the left had stood with Bush on the Iraq war, it would be over. They (the insurgents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them)see the division. They aren't stupid. A united front would have put an end to it.

Sue;
I am hopeful of ultimate victory with or without the Left and I am proud that the majority of the the folks want us to finish the job. I think some of the people that opposed the Vietnam war also oppose this one. I didn't have time to or the inclination to get up in arms back then because I had to work to put myself through college as did my lifelong friends. We did attend a moratorium for the students at Kent State.

Top, not only is success bad, but failure is good! The more deaths in Iraq the better. Did you hear that doctor, I forget who it was, who pontificated on the thought that it's actually not a good thing that the death rate is down in Iraq, because it's obscuring the cost of this terrible misadventure? When the economy is humming, that's actually "bad, bad, bad." Gotta put your head in your lap and recite stuff about the uninsured, the great expansion of executive power grabbing, authoritarian cults or something about the port bidding process, just to make yourself feel ok. It's sick.

I can't help but wonder if Clinton would have said the same thing had Christians peacefully protested the picture of Kanye West as Christ. Or would have condemnded Christians for not allowing freedom of speech? I vote for the latter, if we take a vote.